|
Post by skyth on Jul 16, 2011 12:22:34 GMT -5
As for the judge points, how about instead of 20 discretionary points, give the judges the ability to override parts of the rubric for certain cases. Example: Johny gamer brings Belial and solid Deathwing army. He gets penalize for the SC, multiples of the same unit, limited variety, etc. The judges, seeing the solid theme, choose to override the SC penalty and lessen the repetition penalty. What about no added points in the matrix...The comp starts at 100, and only goes down. However, judges can re-add up to 20 points that were lost? You still get a maximum of 100 points, and you know the minimum score that you might get. Also, with judges awarding points, make sure that the judges don't know who's list they are judging.
|
|
|
Post by evil_red_orks on Jul 16, 2011 15:00:52 GMT -5
My biggest gripe ,and its a big one, is the penalty for 3 or more dedicated transports. So now im getting penalized for each of my different cult troop selections having rhino's.
|
|
|
Post by warmasterprimus on Jul 16, 2011 15:38:04 GMT -5
I can understand why we'd want to penalize multiple HQs, but I think retinues could be exempt. Thinking in the context of Nids, the current system would favor a Tervigon (already a popular choice) over a Tyrant w/ Guard. I feel that retinues are a different beast than other true HQ choices. They're more along the lines of upgrades.
On a more general note, I like last year's system a lot. Putting out the rubric allows people to game the rubric. The judged portion tries to reign in some of the potential cheese, but 20 points doesn't seem like a big enough stick to reign it in. The 20 points also doesn't feel like a big enough reward for people that are trying to be a really compy army.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 16, 2011 16:02:12 GMT -5
My biggest gripe ,and its a big one, is the penalty for 3 or more dedicated transports. So now im getting penalized for each of my different cult troop selections having rhino's. Berzerkers x10 + rhino Plague Marines x8 + rhino Noise Marines x7 + rhino 1k Sons x6 + rhino Assault Marines x5 + land raider Assault Marines x5 + land raider Assault Marines x5 + land raider Assault Marines x5 + land raider Both boil down to 4 troops + 4 dedicated transports. One could be seen as fluffy, one could be seen as min/maxing. Penalizing dedicated transports as a whole is one way to discourage this. Beyond that, you would need to name specific choices, go by individual codex, or give judges more leeway. The whole point of a rubric is to eliminate as much subjectivity from the judges as possible. I don't think one rubric per codex is realistic at this point, we only have 3 months left. The sooner we nail down the rubric, the better the attendance will be. Some people like myself are building a new army just for this event and every time the rubric changes means a potential change in the army, purchasing, assembling, and painting new models. If this goes on for another month or two, some people will eventually decide it's not worth the trouble of tweaking a list to fit the format. I already went out and bought a rhino, razorback, and chimera for my grey knights thinking that would be ok. Now I gotta shelf another $35+ model just to get max points. Personally, I think leaving it to "dedicated transports of any type" is fine. Every squad doesn't need a rhino (or razorback/raider/venom/battlewagon/land raider/drop pod) to fill it's role.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Jul 16, 2011 18:40:02 GMT -5
I had a thought while watching grass grow. (Sad but true).
One of the big complaints about Rubrics is gaming the system. On the other hand, people don't like the subjectivity of judge only comp. I think last years system did a pretty good job.
So, here's my idea. Give out some guidelines, like last year, as well as a "You need this to play" rubric ahead of time. Then, day of, have a more detailed rubric that will be published for all to see, and for final comp score to be based on.
Very rough example.
Guidelines: Minimize duplication, both of units and wargear. Diversify force org slots. Avoid hero-hammer.
"To play" Rubric: (10 pts) -1 for SC - 1 for three of same troop - 1 for 2 of same HQ, elite, heavy, or fast -2 for 3 of same elite, heavy, or fast (etc)
Min of 3pts needed to play
Day of Rubric: (Use current design as example.)
Generally speaking, if people follow the guidelines, and pay attention to the pre-rubric, they should score well on the final rubric, but they won't be able to game the final rubric. You could even do pre-judging like last year with this, using the rubric without revealing it. Day of, same rubric used for all people, so no-one can legitimately complain of subjectivity.
Just a thought. Obviously needs full development, but it shouldn't be hard to put together guidelines and a pre-rubric quickly. Then you still have time to hammer out the full rubric, just keeping it consistent with what's been published.
|
|
|
Post by evil_red_orks on Jul 16, 2011 19:14:34 GMT -5
Totally and wholeheartly disagree. How do u know my chaos marines dont need a rhino to fulfill their role. So i guess we wont be seeing any wyche cult armies, speed freaks, or the like.
I think the judges can and should apply the rubric to different codex's. What about ravenwing and deathwing armies, they have to have multiples of the same unit. Im sure there are more examples out there.
Anyway said my peace, Im done.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 16, 2011 20:57:54 GMT -5
Whoa there what I said was "Every squad doesn't need a rhino". I'm sure some of yours might. However, Courtney was able to take best general at the ATC with one dedicated transport in a fully competitive, no-comp event. That's why I stand by my statement.
IDK why I'm even defending a system I don't believe in. TBH I'm surprised we're even seeing comp after last year's dramas. I guess despite all that, the majority of the player surveys supported comp after last year's event?
Anyways, I'll hold my tongue for the rest of this discussion as comp talk gets ugly.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Jul 16, 2011 22:12:05 GMT -5
I think it may be important to keep in mind that the goal is not to have everyone score a perfect 100. I don't know if 80 should be the norm for that matter either. I believe if you are going to have comp, you have to be tough on the scoring whether it is subjective based or rubric based.
We have to keep in mind that there has been controversey over the comp scoring each and every year that we have had a "DaBoyz GT". Each and every year we have tried something new in how to apply the scoring and it has always resulted in some participants being unhappy with their own and others scoring to some degree. This has then been directed towards the people running the event. The key to the rubric is in customizing it to generate a desired effect in army creation. Lets look back at the year when a rubric was used to score the comp. The few controverseys appeared to stem from the fact that maybe the rubric wasn't strong enough and failed to penalize certain armies that "looked soft on paper" but were quite nasty on the tabletop due to the rubrics "subjectivity" in what at the time constituted good comp. The rubric also wasn't published or discussed ahead of time in great detail either so that participants could make selections. I think that if a "harsher and fairer more restrictive" rubric-which is published to the participants ahead of time is presented then almost all of the controversey will be difused. What little bit of controversey that would be left would have to be directed towards the event itself and not any of the organizers directly or the club for that matter. There will always be armies that benefit from any rubric but if you force every army to not duplicate their choices and represent the whole codex, an environment of fairness may be better achieved
So I then poise this comment for thought - when was the last time you rolled up to the table and played someone who had utilized most of the choices from their codex and didn't have a one dimmensional theme (such as razorback spam, rhino rush, too many models to kill horde, etc) - and thought that their army was over the top? Is this what we want from our rubric? I don't know but I personally feel it is a good place to start.
If we are going to impose point reductions, we have to be fair across the board for everything in any given army. No "waivers" for what we perceive as "compy" because that is being subjective. Impose harsh point restrictions so that only someone who goes out of their way to score well will benefit. Again, just thowing this out there as a point of view for others to consider and reflect on.
Just one old gamers take. Either way, whatever the judges decide to enact, it is still a tournament to have fun playing in.
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Jul 17, 2011 9:48:12 GMT -5
I think they are headed in the right direction penalizing transports due to all the BA min/max spamming. I think that is what they are trying to discourage. Every event we have been to that is out of the local area is based around MSU and I personally am looking forward to an event that discourages that!!! I am tired of armys with 27 units on the table hehe.
Is it possible to reduce the penalty for armies that are taking full squads with transports? In other words 10 marines with a Rhino or razorback would score higher than 6 marines with a rhino/razorback.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 17, 2011 10:20:27 GMT -5
That's a good idea actually. Ben M. had 10 man tac squads with razorbacks in his WGC army. I have no problem with dedicated transports on maxed size squads.
|
|
|
Post by moosifer on Jul 17, 2011 11:55:28 GMT -5
That's a good idea actually. Ben M. had 10 man tac squads with razorbacks in his WGC army. I have no problem with dedicated transports on maxed size squads. So what are your thoughts on chimeras for transports then? Under the rubric a mech guard list could not show up even with full sized squads;)
|
|
|
Post by sambutler on Jul 17, 2011 11:57:00 GMT -5
I think it may be important to keep in mind that the goal is not to have everyone score a perfect 100. I don't know if 80 should be the norm for that matter either. I believe if you are going to have comp, you have to be tough on the scoring whether it is subjective based or rubric based. We have to keep in mind that there has been controversey over the comp scoring each and every year that we have had a "DaBoyz GT". Each and every year we have tried something new in how to apply the scoring and it has always resulted in some participants being unhappy with their own and others scoring to some degree. This has then been directed towards the people running the event. The key to the rubric is in customizing it to generate a desired effect in army creation. Lets look back at the year when a rubric was used to score the comp. The few controverseys appeared to stem from the fact that maybe the rubric wasn't strong enough and failed to penalize certain armies that "looked soft on paper" but were quite nasty on the tabletop due to the rubrics "subjectivity" in what at the time constituted good comp. The rubric also wasn't published or discussed ahead of time in great detail either so that participants could make selections. I think that if a "harsher and fairer more restrictive" rubric-which is published to the participants ahead of time is presented then almost all of the controversey will be difused. What little bit of controversey that would be left would have to be directed towards the event itself and not any of the organizers directly or the club for that matter. There will always be armies that benefit from any rubric but if you force every army to not duplicate their choices and represent the whole codex, an environment of fairness may be better achieved So I then poise this comment for thought - when was the last time you rolled up to the table and played someone who had utilized most of the choices from their codex and didn't have a one dimmensional theme (such as razorback spam, rhino rush, too many models to kill horde, etc) - and thought that their army was over the top? Is this what we want from our rubric? I don't know but I personally feel it is a good place to start. If we are going to impose point reductions, we have to be fair across the board for everything in any given army. No "waivers" for what we perceive as "compy" because that is being subjective. Impose harsh point restrictions so that only someone who goes out of their way to score well will benefit. Again, just thowing this out there as a point of view for others to consider and reflect on. Just one old gamers take. Either way, whatever the judges decide to enact, it is still a tournament to have fun playing in. As one of the very few people to be hammered with the comp hammer last year (placed like 39th out of 60 or so ) My one and only issue with the way comp was handled last year was that there was no published rubric AT ALL, merely "guidelines". This led to the appearance that comp was handled by a nebulous council of individuals who Definitely had their own axes to grind, My army list was given a "estimated comp" score of 50/100 and a "final comp" score of 24/100 when I had not changed a single thing in the list. I was never given a chance to alter it to avoid the 24pt comp set or a reason for the MASSIVE swing in its comp score. That said If it had stayed the same comp I would still have placed 39th (all else being equal). I like comp personally, but if it is to be a part of a tournament it must be published ahead of time, and be a checklist type setup (NO judges discretion). Otherwise it WILL result in some folks feeling abused, and generally POed. The Rubric posted on page1 might benefit from tweaking but it is very clear as to what gets dinged and what does not with NO room for personal pet peeves. (and as such I like it.)
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Jul 17, 2011 15:48:46 GMT -5
Bah...I think I got 7 simply because I had vulcan in pods heeh. I have a vested interest in trying to help them with the comp ruberic heheeh.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jul 17, 2011 16:06:11 GMT -5
It is interesting to see how this discussion is developing. Here is my thinking:
-On a fundamental level it does not make sense to have both a hard rubric then be able to hand out 20 soft points attached to absolutely nothing other than a feeling, opinion, or friendship. The instance on keeping a "judge points" will do nothing but spark comments of bias and favoritism.
-I like Skyth's army specific guidelines for a few reasons. Not every army plays the same. Some armies excel with diversity ( Dark Eldar, Eldar, some Nid builds) while others lend themselves to more traditional spam type builds ( Marines, Guard, etc). You either have to find that sweet spot in the middle that will equalize both these armies ( which I am convinced does not exist) or place per army restrictions.
-Death Star units are a problem in some 40K builds. This system does not hit them hard enough and it needs to be reworked.
-Recognize your biases, meaning that there are certain things locally that we like and do not like, but if the goal is running a fair tournament with broad appeal the comp system in place should penalize things equally, not just what you dont like, but base it on actual game strength and balance in relation to other armies.
-As Gabe pointed out rubrics invite the hardcore tournament players to game the system. Building a rubric will not decrease the hard builds that will show up, all it will do is force these players to tailor their lists to fit there cheese into a new mold.
-Again I freely admit to not having a good system to use to judge comp, but as it stands now this system is just a step sideways, creating a whole different set of bias rather than solving it. Again I will follow this discussion and reserve judgement that rubric comp can work. Right now however I am not convinced.
-Post your document as a PDF please!
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Jul 17, 2011 17:08:50 GMT -5
Plain and simple rubrics dont work. Writting down a set system, or a blanket rubric for the whole game is not going to work.
First off. Setting down a written rubric is only allowing those who was to take the time to fit as much 'hardness' into thier lists as they can. Anyone can find thier way around rubrics. Its done constantly in tournaments around the world.
Second. No one codex is built the same. Penalizing one codex in one aspect could be letting another gain a HUGE benefit. You can't decide to take black and white and claim well its all going to be grey now. That hardly works either. Horde armies excell and being hordes with repititon, your nuetering them. Elite lists are small but hard, you killing them too. *cough* Deathwing. (Which I find funny becuase this was a small topic of last years comp discussion) This rubric allows those armies that can fill any niche well with any selection they have without spamming.
Its also killing themed armies, but I guess thats going the way of the dodo anyways. Recently it looks like more players are worried about winning then the actual game and hobby which I find sad and disheartening.
Looking back, fluff...LOL some people speak of fluff and really have no idea what thier talking about. It seems that to some players fluff is an anethma.
There is nothing in this comp system that rewards players for originality. Its all penalties. This rubric is just as subjective as "A panel of judges who had an axe to grind." I could throw one together that blankets the game in the entirety to fit my needs as well. But then again I have always had a huge dislike of rubric style comp systems, they no more work than judge based systems. Writing it down only means you give the player something to look at and break and later go back to and say: I broke your rubric and won.
I think you are more liable to see similar lists out of this comp style (rubric) becuase everyone is playing within the same boundries set by the it. Some codexes will suffer some will excell. If thats what you are going for then you acomplished that. You are discouraging armies that certain people like to play. If thats the goal to weed away those types of players then this is definatly the way to go. I whole heartly dissagree with it.
My opinion on the matter is, and I beleive this is the only way its viable to do a rubric system with such diverse army selections, is to do a rubric for each individual codex. No time? Well, then you should look toward those that are orginaising it. For those that are ok with the wham bam thank you maam slap on comp, like some above players. Then so be it.
Just so you know, I have always scored very well in comp in every tournament I have ever gone to. We are talkin 80-100 out off 100s. This rubric puts nearly all my armies in the 5-25 point range. Im not painting new armies to satisfy a rubric that penalizes my armies so drastically for no apparent reason. Thats 5 diffrent armies as well That I own that get screwed by this.
I gave my input, Its a good start but thats all it is. It needs alot more work and expasion. It needs to encompass and include each individual codex. And as some have said 3 months away is not alot of time for revision. I am dissapointed. Seems to be alot of talk about points and score and very little about the actual game, fluff and hobby. Sad...That its evolved into get power gaming or go home.
|
|